asia or europe

Unquestionably, your money will go MUCH further in Asia. Some backpackers brag about a $20/day budget in SE Asia (though $30-$40 is more reasonable) whereas you can barely find a dorm bed in Western Europe for under $20, never mind food and transport.

Asia!

Your money goes further in Asia.

Where are you leaving from? If you are from the UK, you may save a lot on the flight if you go to Eastern Europe.

Still, most likely Asia will be cheaper anyway.

Europe is a great continent, very diverse, lots to do, lots to offer. Having said that I'd also recommend Asia - for the money thing but also because it's more exotic. (well unless you live in Asia I guess.

I'd personally go Asia. Like posts before about your money going further, means you can travel for longer

What is with all this 'money goes further' thing? Since when did a decision about where to travel have money as the primary factor?

The primary criteria in planning a trip should always be about where you are INTERESTED in. I have no interest whatsover in SE Asia. I don't care how cheap it is, that's irrelevant. Money only comes into it when deciding how long it will be possible to go for.

Now if someone feels SE Asia is more interesting to them than Europe then by all means, go there. But do not suggest it as a destination based on money.

Cg_explorer, your question is actually easy to answer if you think about it. Which one interests you more? That is the one to go to. I'd rather spend a month or two in Europe (personally) than 3-4 months in SE Asia. In fact you couldn't get me to choose SE Asia no matter what you told me was good about it.

The rest of you guys/gals need to get your priorities right when offering suggestions. Money is not the major factor to promote. If you love SE Asia over Europe that's fine, then go ahead and promote it based on what you think it has to offer other than low cost. Give the OP a comparison of interests not money.

Travelinstyle, you're right that interest is the first point when picking a destination - but price is a factor. If someone has $x and y weeks to travel then they do need to pick a destination which they are interested in which matches that interest. No point in thinking that Scandanavian culture and fjords would be fascinating but have a very limited budget.

No question about that Toad. I just find there is often too much emphasis on money instead of interests.

If I have $7000 and 3 months available to travel, the 3 months is the MAXIMUM time I can be away but it is not the minimum. So if it's Europe I want to see and my $7000 will only get me 6 weeks there, then so be it. I go for 6 weeks.

If I happen to be equally as interested in sitting on a beach in Thailand and I can do that for 12 weeks then I might choose that instead. But if I am most interested in the fjords of Norway and I can only afford 3 weeks there, that's where I am going to go.

I see too many comments here by people who are putting cost at the top of the list in making a decision as to where to go. That makes no sense to me at all.